As a result, the New York Appellate Division for the First Judicial Department suspended him indefinitely based on his present inability to practice law.

The mental health issues came to light in the attorney's deposition:

In March 2011, in furtherance of the Committee's investigation,
respondent was deposed by the Committee and testified as follows: In
2008, respondent's depression, with which he had been afflicted since
the age of 22, was greatly exacerbated by the traumatic death of two
individuals, - his life partner, who died after his car careened
off a mountain in October 2008, and his niece, who died after she hit a
tree while skiing in March 2009. Despite the aforementioned deaths,
respondent took no time away from his practice to grieve because at the
time the number of loan modification cases which he was retained to
handle significantly increased. Moreover, shortly after the death of his
life partner, respondent began to consume large quantities of alcohol,
becoming an alcoholic. Although respondent joined Alcoholics Anonymous
in March 2009, shortly after his niece's death, and began therapy for
his depression in November 2009, he nevertheless found it difficult to
both manage his law practice and focus on recovering from his depression
and alcoholism. Lastly, in 2009, respondent's paralegal, who was
critical to respondent's practice, quit. Accordingly, with respect to
the circumstances giving rise to the client complaints against him,
respondent attributed any deficiencies in the handling of his client's
cases to the sudden growth of his practice at a time when, due to
worsening depression, alcohol addiction and the loss of a valued
employee, he was ill-equipped to manage it properly.

While at the time of his deposition, respondent had been sober
and in recovery, was seeing a therapist for his depression, was on 10mg
per day of Lexapro, a depression medication, and was still running his
practice, he nevertheless testified that running his practice was very
challenging. Specifically, respondent testified that he was "at a point
in [his] practice where [he was] actively trying to downsize and perhaps
take a break." After his deposition, by his own account, respondent's
depression worsened and hefound it increasingly difficult to practice
law. In September 2011, respondent sent aletter to the Committee
informing itthat he was closing his practice because his health had
worsened and he wanted to continue his recovery. In November 2011,
whenrespondent was again deposed by the Committee he reiteratedthat
since his depression had worsened and he couldn't both run a law
practice and effectively treat his depression and alcoholism, he had stopped practicing law,closed
his law practice, vacated his office, and with the assistance of other
lawyers, referred active matters to other attorneys, refunded unearned
legal fees, and where necessary, sought court permission to withdraw
from pending matters.

The court:

Here, respondent's testimony at his depositions establishes that he is
afflicted with severe depression, that he became an alcoholic as a
result thereof, and that he cannot both practice law and focus on his
recovery and therapy. Moreover, within his affidavit, respondent admits
that his depression has contributed to the neglect of his clients' legal
matters, such that his clients have filed complaints against him.
Lastly, respondent's treating psychiatrist corroborates respondent's
assertions, and to the extent that she recommends that respondent cease
the practice of law, she establishes that respondent's condition renders
him incapable of practicing law.